RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/24/2009

Nudging the gavel? CA official sends a friendly 'btw'

by Jeremy Hooper

We're pretty sure that following document, which we obtained by a public record request to the CA court, is mostly procedural and will have little bearing on the California Supreme Court's eventual outcome on the Prop 8 matter. However, it is still nice to see that the State Solicitor General is reinforcing the "equal protection" element of the Iowa Supreme Court marriage ruling, an apparent attempt to encourage the CA Supremes to follow suit:


Hooper Jeremy ResAttach 04-23-09

We'll have to wait and see if this Iowa reminder (or anything) tips the court towards fairness. Though we sincerely hope they recycle, both this paper and the fairness that they put forth last May.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Thanks so much. I am supposed to get court notices, but didn't get this one. I was wondering how that could be done. Posted EVERYWHERE. .... for whatever, good it is, as you say.

Posted by: LOrion | Apr 24, 2009 2:40:12 PM

I think the Iowa ruling only reinforces the SCOCA's decision to uphold prop 8. Because now they can point to their own ruling of last year as having influenced the rulings in CT and IA (both rulings referred to CA's re: Marriages case), and therefore feel as if with good conscience that they've advanced the issue. And they have, however, that doesn't negate the fact that upholding 8 causes a whole host of new issues for minorities in the state.

Posted by: Bruno | Apr 24, 2009 4:44:55 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails